The tree should be kept in the database with a notation that is dead. If you are looking at things like size potential, or size distribution the fact that this particular tree is now dead should not be of importance to the analysis. For other types of analysis (I can't think of an example except current RI) you might want to include just living trees. So whether a particular dead tree should have its measurements included in a particular type of analysis really depends on what you are trying to figure out.

Like wise if a tree has lost its top, it might be replaced by another tree as the largest or tallest, but its maximum height data should be retained. I wanted the database to allow multiple entries for a single tree so that its changes over time could be recorded. For a TDI ranking I would want to include the tallest tree as the 100% value even if it is now dead or has lost its top. I am not sure what the Trees DB is setup to do right now as I haven't entered any new trees for a long time.

Ed

"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

Absolutely keep the tree dead trees in the database. Ed does a nice job of summarizing many of the most important reasons to do so.

One other thing to keep in mind is the long term scientific value of the data NTS is collecting. The world is changing in many ways that affect trees: precipitation, temperature, and pollution are all changing. Some of those changes will positively impact tree growth and survival while others will harm trees, and the effects may be species and location specific. Having data from trees in the past is indispensable in determining those impacts. For instance, all of the largest sugar pines profiled in Bob Van Pelt's Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast are now dead. Did they die because the largest individuals are necessarily near the maximum age they can obtain, or did they die because conditions have changed such the the habitat can no longer support trees of that size?

I'll make a note in the database entry, then. I was considering Turner's approach, but I see the value of documenting historical maximums, as well. Thank you all for making my thinking clearer.

Elijah

"There is nothing in the world to equal the forest as nature made it. The finest formal forest, the most magnificent artificially grown woods, cannot compare with the grandeur of primeval woodland." Bob Marshall, Recreational Limitations to Silviculture in the Adirondacks

NTS, Elijah:I agree that trees that have died or lost stature should be in the database. I am trying to figure out the best way to enter such trees that are stand alone examples. If each one is entered separately it makes ones entry list that much longer. Mine is already long enough that it is becoming burdensome to find an older entry to update or correct it.

The now-dead cottonwood has lost most of its bark. Here are photos from all four sides taken this afternoon:

Thoughts?Elijah

"There is nothing in the world to equal the forest as nature made it. The finest formal forest, the most magnificent artificially grown woods, cannot compare with the grandeur of primeval woodland." Bob Marshall, Recreational Limitations to Silviculture in the Adirondacks

Very reminiscent of other trees in which the fluted wood of the trunk seems to make it difficult to truly tell the signs of fusion from buttressing in reaction to the physical stressed of supporting two leaders up top (and with significant wind exposure) while rooted on a slope. Still a tough call. I'd call it a single with some history.